SuperSmart← Back to DiscoverDiscover
RESEARCH DRAFT

Research draft. Conclusions may change; review the sources and limitations before relying on them.

RESEARCH DRAFT · NOT A VERIFIED CONCLUSION

A correction notice went out. An affected test lot appears in a malfunction report 80 days later.

Matching an FDA recall to a later report by device identifier and lot number reveals a precise follow-up question: when did the correction reach the instrument?

research_draftUpdated 2026-09-080 recorded actions
Conceptual generated illustration of documents and civic architectureCONCEPTUAL ILLUSTRATION

Monitor this connection

Sign in to your account to monitor updates
2Recorded evidence rows
0Investigation actions
6Review limitations
0Recorded answers

What this page shows

FDA recall Z-1479-2024 lists device identifier 00380740001414 and lot 59194BE00, with a correction notice dated March 4, 2024. A separate MAUDE report, 3002809144-2024-00184, names the same identifier and lot, with an event date of May 23, 2024: 80 calendar days later. The report describes a false-reactive hepatitis C test after a syphilis test. Its manufacturer narrative discusses reagent carryover and a revised assay file adding a wash step. It records no impact to patient management. This connection is specific enough to investigate correction follow-through, not to conclude that a fix failed. The missing evidence is the affected instrument's update and calibration history. Both original documents were reviewed for this comparison.

Recorded evidence

FDA recall database
Recall Z-1479-2024 — affected device identifiers, lots and correction notice2024-03-04
↗
FDA MAUDE · manufacturer report
Report 3002809144-2024-00184 — matching lot and later event date2024-05-23
↗

Limitations & review notes

  • Research draft. Conclusions may change; review the sources and limitations before relying on them.
  • Restored archival research draft: not independently reverified for this republication and not actively monitored. Check the linked originals and dated scope before relying on it.
  • The report does not establish whether the revised assay file was installed before the event; a post-notice event is not proof of post-fix failure.
  • MAUDE contains reported events and manufacturer narratives, not independent causal adjudications. This report says there was no impact to patient management.
  • One matched report cannot establish incidence, the number of affected patients, or the effectiveness of the correction across laboratories.
  • Novelty is the reviewed identifier-and-date connection, not a claim of first-ever discovery. A targeted web search found the underlying records but did not establish whether someone else has already made this connection.

Questions this connection opens

  1. For Abbott ARCHITECT Anti-HCV recall Z-1479-2024 and MAUDE report 3002809144-2024-00184, can the device identifier 00380740001414 and lot 59194BE00 be matched to an instrument update and calibration record before May 23, 2024? Separate unavailable records from evidence that the update was not installed.
  2. Across laboratory-test corrections, which subsequent malfunction reports match an affected device identifier and lot, and which explicitly document that the correction was installed before the event? Deduplicate follow-up reports, distinguish event dates from receipt dates, and report missing installation evidence.
Go deeper

Ask a follow-up question, compare another company, or review the supporting evidence.

Ask a follow-up